Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Donray]

Your article that is suppose to prove evolution "scientifically".

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

Everything on this planet has to exist on what is on this planet. So this has to be the case in order for anything to survive on this planet. This is no proof but simply an observation of what has to be.

Besides this is a creation argument called common because of a common designer.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

Have you never heard of punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated equilibrium had to be developed because smooth, gradual transitions were not what was found in the fossil record.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

Man's Y chromosome is only 70% like a Chimpanzees.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.

It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.

It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.

I am not sure Richard reads much. This has been debunked decades ago.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

H1N1 is extinct. It became extinct because of a build up of mutations.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 130 by EarthScienceguy]

I notice that you refuse to discuss the scientific method as it applies to your belief in a sky god, the bible, and your idea of creation.

Don't you show hypocrisy when you will not except that Evolution has been proven and yet you offer no proof that your sky god created anything or that for example that the bible story of Mosses or Noah are real.

Why don’t you use your science to prove your idea of creation?????????? I know why, you can’t do it and can only try to say the Evolution is wrong. Nothing about how you are right, but that anyone that does not belive like you are wrong no matter all the proof that Evolution has and is happening.

You belive in adaptation and that is nothing but another word for evolution. You cannot explin the difference between your idea of adaptation and Dwain’s Theory of Evolution.

I notice you only respond to things that you want to and never to questions about your beliefs.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Neatras]

Hello Neatras,

Thank you for conceding that creation truth stands as irrefutable. Where do we go from here? What's the benefit?

We are assured that our collective knowledge of the self-evident truth that we are created beings endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights is undeniably true. How do we know that these rights are unalienable without knowledge that He that created us is holding us responsible for how we treat each other? This is the thing that matters! Is it not? But there are yet some that continue to this day with their determined efforts to "debunk" this truth. For what?

What rights did the "great, great sovereignty" of evolution give us? Does creation truth discord scientific theory? False theories falsify themselves. With the multitudes of millions of species on earth, why don't we have many transitional forms? What is science but knowledge gained through experimentation and observation of what's around us that was created (where is our starting point?)?

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

Do we need to call creation truth that's already known a theory? I hope that the purpose of this discussion is not to continue in endless deadlocked arguments over fossils and carbon dating. If otherwise, what should we expect to gain?

If we leave out knowledge that God (of the Bible) created us, we make ourselves like little children that grow up trying to develop a peaceful, orderly society with no outside help at all- not even parents. Is that possible?

Earl